Michael McConville wrote:
> Am I interpreting this correctly?
>
> This is the least invasive fix, but it's unfortunate that this function
> allows the supplied buffer to be NULL. If we made it unconditionally
> allocate a new buffer, we would have to change some program logic
> because uses pass s
Am I interpreting this correctly?
This is the least invasive fix, but it's unfortunate that this function
allows the supplied buffer to be NULL. If we made it unconditionally
allocate a new buffer, we would have to change some program logic
because uses pass stack-allocated statically-sized buffer
